INDER SINGH MEHTA
Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager Tauni Devi – Appellant
Versus
Roop Singh – Respondent
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President.—Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 04.09.2023 of learned District Commission, Una Camp at Hamirpur, in consumer complaint No. 54/2019 titled Roop Singh Versus Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed.
Brief facts of the Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2018 complainant deposited a cheque bearing No.092624 with the opposite party/PNB drawn at State Bank of India for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for crediting the cheque amount in the account of complainant i.e. No.3310000-106707358. Inadvertently, amount of cheque was mentioned in Pay-in-Slip as Rs.10,000/- but exact amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and this mistake was inadvertent as depositor failed to add one zero to the amount. The opposite party/Bank intimated the complainant that cheque has been lost and same could not be traced despite its best efforts. The cheque has been destroyed by the bank in collusion with drawee of the cheque. Issuer of the cheque has refused to issue fresh cheque to the complainant. There was insufficient amount in the account of the person who had issued the cheque. In order to save the issue
Cheque lost in transit in collusion with issuer of cheque – Issuer of cheque not impleaded as necessary party – No deficiency in service or Unfair trade practice on part of OP/Bank.
The main legal point established is the liability of the opposite party No.1 for negligence and deficiency in service in handling the cheque clearance process.
Liability for negligence in handling cheques during transit is upheld in consumer disputes; compensation awarded is justified.
Verification of PAN - there is no requirement of verification of PAN details before encashing a cheque in a Bank.
“In new of facts and circumstance of the case if mater is found to be a subject of fresh consideration, remand of matter held justified.”
1) OP.1 & 2 being the bankers of OP.3 if acted upon on the request of OP.3 being his service provider, stopped payment, which could not be said either unfair trade practice or deficiency in service o....
(1) No Objection Certificate (NOC) – A consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service regarding loan repayment (such as excess deduction of installments) is not maintainable if the complainant has....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.